The poll also doesn't appear to ask employers if they will cut work hours for their employees. Just because two thirds of employers won't fire minimum wage employees after a hike in the minimum wage, it doesn't automagically follow that the minimum wage employees will take home more money each week. They make take home the same or less, depending on the reduction in hours.
The studies also don't appear to consider what happens to higher paid employees. Even if minimum wage employees are not fired and don't have their hours cut, more skilled/experienced employees could end up receiving lower wage increases to offset the minimum wage hike.
There are a lot more ways to offset increased labor costs than simply firing people and none of those ways are easily tracked.

Wow, I had no idea there was so much money to be made in the porous drain cover business! I guess I screwed up when I chose to go into IT.
Moral: Proof reading is your friend.
Hint: grate =! great
Hint 2: =! means "not equal"

"Yes, your heart can be right but your behavior can be wrong" completely contradicts what you wrote above. "f your heart is right, then your behavior is eight (sic)." (I assume 'eight' was a simple typo resulting from hitting the key to the left of the 'r' key.)
The second statement -- your heart can be right but your behavior be wrong -- is a conservative statement. Essentially, this means that actions speak for themselves. The first statement -- if your heart is right then your actions are right -- is demonstrated regularly by liberals when high-profile liberals are given a pass on behavior which would have been condemned had a high-profile conservative done the same thing.
But, seriously, goldi, you can't have it both ways. Pick an option and stick with it.

Is one of those the data set Phil Jones refused to release? If not, can you offer any reasonable explanation for Jones' refusal?
Are these raw data sets or are they massaged (not a dirty word -- there are plenty of good reasons to massage data) data sets? If massaged, is the massaging explained? Are any of these data sets presented numerically, so it can be used by others in calculations and models? Is this a listing of the data sets or the actual data sets themselves?
I admit to not spending much time looking at the links, but one for the IPCC was great for graphs but I didn't see a way to get the numerical data behind the graph.
Finally, and the single most important point, a data set does not provide "...empirical evidence that CO2 is inducing any warming..." None at all. Remember, correlation is not the same as causation.

There is no actual, empirical evidence that CO2 is inducing any warming at all. There are a lot of computer models, none of which has actually managed to accurately predict what little warming has occurred. In fact, the warming which has occurred falls below the lowest end predictions for most models. Thosee low end predictions all come with assumptions Kyoto treaty level changes have been enacted. As those kinds of changes have not been enacted, the predictions are even bigger failures. The last 15 years of flat temperatures are perfect examples of just such failures.
Worse than that is the way those behind the models jealously protect their methods and data. No true scientist would respond to a request for their data as Dr. Phil Jones did to Warrick Hughes -- “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” That is exactly WHY true scientists make their data available. Science is supposed to be a methodical search for the truth, not a noisy search for acclaim. Dr. Jones didn't care about the truth, just about preserving his claims. That makes him an activist, not a scientist.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-phil-jones-of-the-uea-cru/
Finally, as many activist warmists (repetitive of me, I know) say, follow the money. They claim big oil money is all that keeps the so-called "deniers" going while ignoring the money big oil contributes to organizations which support global warming theory. Meanwhile, they totally ignore the billions -- yes, with a B -- of dollars big government throws into the equation. And if you believe government is without an agenda in this matter, you are fooling yourself.

A few years ago, my wife and I went to a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse for our anniversary. We had a reservation and were on time, yet sat for ten minutes without anyone approaching us. I was 30 seconds from walking out when a waiter finally showed up.
So we were off to a bad start before we even placed our order. Then, midway the appetizer, some guy suddenly appeared at our table with -- I kid you not -- a little tool designed to scrape up all the bread crumbs from our tablecloth. Not being the type people who likes to have a personal conversation with a complete stranger leaning over the table, my wife and I could only sit there for the next several minutes while the guy scraped off the table. Unfortunately, he came back two more times during our dinner.
So, yeah, I'm ready for a nice, non-intrusive tablet to take my order when I'm ready to give it. And maybe so an enterprising software developer will include the option to send messages to management. I'd opt for "Leave the #^*@# crumbs alone until we are finished."

This column is nothing more than a double plus ungood thought crime! All good thinking citizens know capitalism is ungood. Big Brother has a little room set aside for Stossel and his fellow thought criminals from which he will emerge a better person capable only of good think!*
*Presented in Newspeak, the official language of the New World Order

Yes, I've noticed that tendency among liberals. A hurricane of facts can rage all around them, utterly destroying any rational basis for the liberal's belief. After the storm, the liberal will simply state, "I believe otherwise." And yet liberals think they are scientific and logical ones.